1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208 
Sunderland's Manage Answered by L.T.E.
Page 94
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CR1T1C1SMS of London Tramp which were made lastweek by Norman Morton. general manager Sunderland Corporation Transport; lu been answered in a special statemi by the L.T.E. Mr. Morton made remarks in a paper on" Public Cont Without Nationalization," presented the Municipal Passenger Transp Association.
He was particularly critical .of specially designed buses used in Lon& pointing out that these expensive vehic showed no savings in maintenance co: To this, the L.T.E. refer to the LC Chambers Committee Report, wh. stated that London traffic condith justified the use of a special bus. Tb claim that the higher initial -cost is sa', many times over through economy operation.
Dealing with the suggestion ti London bus maintenance is too expens. and inflexible, the statement. draws attt tion to the fact that continued econom are being made in maintenance. It sr costs have been reduced throu standardization of bus design, flow-li overhaul methods, improved gara equipment, and the extension of " when required overhaul instead fixed period overhauls.
On the question of fares—Mr. Mort said London Transport's compar unfavourably with those charged in t provinces—it is pointed out that tra, in London costs only a fraction over : a mile, which is an increase of 145 y cent, on pre-war scales. This level fares compares favourably with tilt charged elsewhere, considering that non profitable underground railw system has to be operated.
The idea that London Transpc should be divided into four self-contain bodies is rejected on the ground ti services could not be fully co-ordinati Also rejected is the suggestion that lot authorities should be represented on t Executive.